The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

the catholic church officially teaches that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 848 times Debate No: 55017
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




the only teachings that might say otherwise, are fallible, nonauthoritative statements. remember to be authoritative, it has to be the pope, intentionally, teaching, the church, on faith and morals. private letters, presentations to limited audiences etc, do not count.

limbo, just some examples:

Council of Florence Session 11 (Bull Cantate Domino): "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time..."

Council of Florence Session 6 "..the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains."

No salvation for noncatholics:

you can find plenty of rigorist authoritative quotes here:

the only authoritative type statements that i see that they can be saved are vatican ii. it could be argued that they said they didnt intend to define anything, and it's always possible to hope that noncahtolics would somehow repent or 'be shown an angel before death' or something as is traditionally the only way of getting saved. so when they say noncatholics 'may' be saved, it is a political


This statement is so wrong I am scared for you. First of all, the Catholic Church teaches that anyone who believes in a form of the True God, from Allah to Yahweh, if they live a life pleasing to God and repent for their sins, they will go to Heaven. It does not matter that they are of a different religion, such as a Protestant or Muslim. Unbaptized infants, though they have Original Sin on their soul, they cannot control if they are baptized or not. Jews are not baptized ever, but they can still go to Heaven. Muhammad was not baptized, but he was a great prophet for the Muslim people and probably went to Heaven. Just as young children cannot be held responsible for their sins until they reach the age of reason (about age 6), they are not held accountable for their parents' actions. It was once believed that unbaptized people go into Limbo, the edge of Hell that the early faithful people went to before Jesus opened the gates of Heaven. This was never an official doctrine of the Church. Non-Catholics and Unbaptized Infants do not go to Hell, but can go to Heaven
Debate Round No. 1


you have not shown any official teachings that noncatholics can be saved, you merely present assertions. on the other hand, i did provide a ton of evidence that says they are condemned to hell. same goes for the unbaptized infants stuff.

you say it was never official doctrine of the church, but if you read the quotes, you can see they are from the council of florence, a dogmatic council. and within the text it says 'we define...' and right after the quotes in question it says 'we also define...' which shows a continuity in thought about defining dogma. again you are just making assertions and providing no actual evidence.


First of all, all your resources are not proper sources, they are only things that any random person could have made up. Especially the Wikipedia link, I went to look at it, and there is a link to edit the quotes that were said. Not even the slightest bit trustworthy.

First, on the topic of Unbaptized Infants, the Church published a document ("The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized") on April 20 (very recent!) that the traditional concept of limbo reflects an "unduly restrictive view of salvation." In the document, the Church said "God is merciful and wants all human beings to be saved,". Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from Heaven does not seem to reflect Christ's special love for "the little ones," it said. Their conclusion was "the many factors that we have considered ... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision". In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it tells of how "unbaptized infants are entrusted to God's mercy". (Heaven)

On Non-Catholic's, every religion believes that their religion is the only religion for salvation. From Protestants to Muslims. Every religion was intolerant of other religions. Over the years, religions have become increasingly more tolerant of other religions. The Catholic Church officially teaches (in Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium) that "Followers of the Catholic Church, Members of other Christian denominations, and Believers of Non-Christian religions all have the potential for salvation". It also tells of "The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."

Also, the Council of Florence was called to discuss the Great Western Schism, not unbaptized infants. The views that the Council declared have changed since the 1400's, when the Council was called. Neither of your Council of Florence quotes do anything for your argument, but tell us when infants should be baptized, and tell us what baptism does. Infants cannot be held responsible for their parents' actions. The Session Six quote only relates to those Catholics who are able to make their own choices (Teen's-Adult's), then they are held accountable for not going to receive the sacrament when they can.

Obviously, you're not educated enough on this topic to be able to intelligently discuss it with me.

You want sources?
Unbaptized Infants: (Actually Trustworthy)
Non-Catholics Go to Heaven: (Another Trustworthy Site)

Official enough for you? (Actual teachings of the Catholic Church, not weird quotes that do not support your argument)
Debate Round No. 2


you can easily double check the wiki article with other internet sources. wiki may not be a definiitve end all be all source, but it's almost always accurate, and always able to be doubled checked. that was an extremely weak argument.

neither that document about infants who die, or the catechism are considered infallible. they are not official teachings. a past catechism said they go to limbo. limbo is considered a part of hell. again, to be official, it has to the pope intentionally binding the church, on faith and morals. that is not present in those sources.

as to the vatican II stuff, as ive already mentioned, you have to read those in the vein of a political statement. for catholics, the only way to reconcile the past and present teachings is to consider it political only, cause past statements say it's not possible for them to be saved. for noncatholics, i admit it's easier to argue there's a contradiction or that there's more than one official teaching, but given the weight of rigorist quotes, and the hippie days of vatican ii, we could say it was political only. see my first post for more reasoning on this point.

the florence quotes surely have to do not with teens and adults. anyone other than an infant has actual sins, they have more than original sin. the flroence quote says those with original sin go to hell. ergo, unbaptiazed infants go to hell. it may hve been a council about the east and the west, but the writing is explicit... "we define... " and then gives a list of teachings, including the original sin teaching. it even says right after that teaching 'we also define...." which bolsters the idea that it should be considered an infallible statement.

Obviously, you're not educated enough on this topic to be able to intelligently discuss it with me.


Everything that I posted was actual teaching that the Pope taught and are now a part of our Catechism. If you wanted to post reliable sources besides Wikipedia, you should have posted those sources, instead of a cite where you can edit the page. You could have scrolled to the bottom, and posted a link from where Wikipedia got its sources from. That is a lot more trustworthy.

Yes, the documents are not infallible, but the Pope has only declared Papal Infallibility on two teachings of the Church.

I bet you didn't even read the sources, because then you would have seen how the Pope approved and taught both documents.

Limbo is a part of Hell,but it is a part of Hell that all religious people went to before Jesus opened the Gates of Heaven with his Death. Mostly, Limbo was just a holding area for good people until Jesus came. The people in Limbo were never subject to Satan. They were never punished by Satan. The Church no longer teaches about Limbo, because no one goes there since Jesus came. It was an idea conceived in the Middle Ages, so it is outdated. All infants are not responsible for their actions. The Church does teach that if once you are able to make your own decisions and you are not baptized, then you will go to Hell. Infants, however, cannot be baptized unless their parents bring them to be.

The Church has declared no Papal Teaching infallible but two when the Pope declared Papal Infallibility, and both concern Mary. Only the teaching of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary has been declared infallible by the Vatican.

My favorite part of this debate was how you did not post anything that supports your argument over the last two rounds, but tried to prove me wrong (and failed).

Also, great job being original with your comeback. You even copied and pasted it because your capitalization and spelling has been horrid over the last three rounds, and you obviously didn't write it yourself.

Obviously you are not smart enough to come up with your own comebacks.

You can have the last word, obviously you need it.

I will leave you with a quote in Zulu that describes you. "Uyisiwula."
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.